On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 04:59:20 +0100, Jiaxun Yang <jiaxun.yang@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > 在 2023/8/25 20:56, Krzysztof Kozlowski 写道: > [...] > > How did you sneak this property? The version - v2 - which was reviewed > > by Rob: > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20190905144316.12527-7-jiaxun.yang@xxxxxxxxxxx/ > > did not have it. > > > > Now v3 suddenly appears with Rob's review and this property: > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20200112081416.722218-4-jiaxun.yang@xxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > Please help me understand this property appeared there and how did you > > get it reviewed? > Hi all, > > It has been some years since this series was merged. > My vague memory tells me there was some off-list discussion made in IRC with > linux-arch folks and IRQ folks to come up with this binding design. > > In this case I guess I forgot to drop Rob's R-b tag when updating this patch > between reversions. I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. > > > > >> <0xffffffff>, /* int1 */ > >> <0x00000000>, /* int2 */ > >> <0x00000000>; /* int3 */ > > So now you will keep bringing more hacks for a hacky property. No, this > > cannot go on. > > What's the best way, in your opinion, to overhaul this property? As we don't > really care backward compatibility of DTBs on those systems we can > just redesign it. You may not care about backward compatibility, but I do. We don't break existing systems, full stop. As for the offending property, it has no place here either. DT is not the place where you put "performance knobs". M. -- Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
